Chamber and committees

Good morning. I know that we will be talking about a number of things on the financial side, but, on the personal side, disability benefits are very important to the people who require them. In relation to case load increases across the UK, to what extent is the increase in the number of people getting disability benefits simply a reflection of increased need, or is it driven by increasing levels of disability?

I have three questions that tie together, so it might be easier if I ask them all together.

09:45

This is the second question. There are obviously cost of living pressures at the moment, and that may have encouraged people who are entitled to these benefits but had not previously claimed them to do so. Do you think that that is part of it? I know that councils have been encouraging people to claim unclaimed benefits.

In addition, other factors such as the design of disability benefits might contribute to the rising case loads across the UK—for example the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment may have had an impact. Has the move away from face-to-face assessments made a difference, too?

Sorry—there is quite a lot in there, but I thought that it would be better if I tied the three questions together.

Yes.

To come back a little on that, do you agree with the conclusion of the Timms review more than the other review? You mentioned that the Timms review said that more people who are entitled to the benefit are now actually claiming it.

I will try to run through a few points quickly.

I will talk to you another time about the 4 per cent and 96 per cent of businesses, but I probably disagree with what you said about that. The international companies have been using AI, but they understand it; they have good staff, so they retrain and upskill them. That is my personal experience with a couple of those companies. Councils are also doing a bit of that, so I think that the 96 per cent is probably where the work is. I think that you are pushing at an open door with the 4 per cent.

There are many things that I could ask you, but you have already covered a number of points. Taking into account the banking crash and then austerity, followed by Brexit and the pandemic, I understand why there have been a number of changes since 2007, so I will take your recommendation and take time to read the 2007 strategy.

On the higher rates of investment in other places—although we have more projects—are energy costs part of the issue in bringing large industry here? We all know the problems that we have with energy costs in Scotland.

11:00

I am the MSP for Falkirk West, and I live in a place called Larbert. You brought up Alexander Dennis. The situation there concerned me before I became an MSP. I was in meetings with the people at Alexander’s where subsidy control and purchasing regulations often came up, but those things are not in Scotland’s hands. Beyond Alexander’s, the fact that we do not get to give that support to industry in Scotland presents us with a problem. I had a look at purchasing for Alexander’s, which provides a good example. The Scottish Government tried to put in some sort of local support. I know that the UK Government was talking about putting 10 per cent on, but I think that 20 per cent is already in the contract, so I do not know whether 10 per cent coming from the UK is going to help.

The big question really is: how is regulation that is not in Scotland’s control, particularly the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and the purchasing regulations, affecting investment? I know that that is a huge question—apologies.

There is no sense in me asking my question now, as I have found the answer.

That is a good point. I mentioned the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in particular, but procurement regulations have also been a big challenge. We were talking about Alexander Dennis, but I am also thinking about large industry throughout Scotland, where that is an absolutely massive challenge. What you said about China and the way that it is looking to go with markets goes back to 2007, and that is the circle of my questions.

I have found another question for the minister.

I agree with the order and think it is positive. My understanding is that one reason for the extension is that three months is a very short period for an employee to reflect on what happened when they lost their employment or when there was a breach in their employment. I think that giving people six months will do one of two things: it will either allow them to move forward to an employment tribunal, or it will give them a bit more time to take advice so that they can do the right thing. Is that a reason why the change is coming in?

I am not sure that it will lead to more tribunals, because, after reviewing the situation, more people might not want to go forward, even if some still do.

Dare I use the expression “common sense”? That is what it sounds like to me.

You know that, when a business wants to make a change, it has to pump prime that to make it happen.

That can sometimes be a challenge when you are looking at budgets, but it is worth doing. We should be scanning the horizon and looking over a longer period.